RFC 1661 – The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)

the original Configure-Request.
A summary of the Configure-Nak packet format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
3 for Configure-Nak.
Identifier
The Identifier field is a copy of the Identifier field of the
Configure-Request which caused this Configure-Nak.
Options
The Options field is variable in length, and contains the list of
zero or more Configuration Options that the sender is Nak'ing.
All Configuration Options are always Nak'd simultaneously.
5.4. Configure-Reject
Description
If some Configuration Options received in a Configure-Request are
not recognizable or are not acceptable for negotiation (as
configured by a network administrator), then the implementation
MUST transmit a Configure-Reject. The Options field is filled
with only the unacceptable Configuration Options from the
Configure-Request. All recognizable and negotiable Configuration
Options are filtered out of the Configure-Reject, but otherwise
the Configuration Options MUST NOT be reordered or modified in any
way.
On reception of a Configure-Reject, the Identifier field MUST
match that of the last transmitted Configure-Request.
Additionally, the Configuration Options in a Configure-Reject MUST
Simpson [Page 31]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
be a proper subset of those in the last transmitted Configure-
Request. Invalid packets are silently discarded.
Reception of a valid Configure-Reject indicates that when a new
Configure-Request is sent, it MUST NOT include any of the
Configuration Options listed in the Configure-Reject.
A summary of the Configure-Reject packet format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
4 for Configure-Reject.
Identifier
The Identifier field is a copy of the Identifier field of the
Configure-Request which caused this Configure-Reject.
Options
The Options field is variable in length, and contains the list of
zero or more Configuration Options that the sender is rejecting.
All Configuration Options are always rejected simultaneously.
Simpson [Page 32]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
5.5. Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack
Description
LCP includes Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack Codes in order to
provide a mechanism for closing a connection.
An implementation wishing to close a connection SHOULD transmit a
Terminate-Request. Terminate-Request packets SHOULD continue to
be sent until Terminate-Ack is received, the lower layer indicates
that it has gone down, or a sufficiently large number have been
transmitted such that the peer is down with reasonable certainty.
Upon reception of a Terminate-Request, a Terminate-Ack MUST be
transmitted.
Reception of an unelicited Terminate-Ack indicates that the peer
is in the Closed or Stopped states, or is otherwise in need of
re-negotiation.
A summary of the Terminate-Request and Terminate-Ack packet formats
is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
5 for Terminate-Request;
6 for Terminate-Ack.
Identifier
On transmission, the Identifier field MUST be changed whenever the
content of the Data field changes, and whenever a valid reply has
been received for a previous request. For retransmissions, the
Identifier MAY remain unchanged.
On reception, the Identifier field of the Terminate-Request is
copied into the Identifier field of the Terminate-Ack packet.
Simpson [Page 33]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains uninterpreted
data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
value. The end of the field is indicated by the Length.
5.6. Code-Reject
Description
Reception of a LCP packet with an unknown Code indicates that the
peer is operating with a different version. This MUST be reported
back to the sender of the unknown Code by transmitting a Code-
Reject.
Upon reception of the Code-Reject of a code which is fundamental
to this version of the protocol, the implementation SHOULD report
the problem and drop the connection, since it is unlikely that the
situation can be rectified automatically.
A summary of the Code-Reject packet format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rejected-Packet ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Code
7 for Code-Reject.
Identifier
The Identifier field MUST be changed for each Code-Reject sent.
Rejected-Packet
The Rejected-Packet field contains a copy of the LCP packet which
is being rejected. It begins with the Information field, and does
not include any Data Link Layer headers nor an FCS. The
Rejected-Packet MUST be truncated to comply with the peer's
Simpson [Page 34]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
established MRU.
5.7. Protocol-Reject
Description
Reception of a PPP packet with an unknown Protocol field indicates
that the peer is attempting to use a protocol which is
unsupported. This usually occurs when the peer attempts to
configure a new protocol. If the LCP automaton is in the Opened
state, then this MUST be reported back to the peer by transmitting
a Protocol-Reject.
Upon reception of a Protocol-Reject, the implementation MUST stop
sending packets of the indicated protocol at the earliest
opportunity.
Protocol-Reject packets can only be sent in the LCP Opened state.
Protocol-Reject packets received in any state other than the LCP
Opened state SHOULD be silently discarded.
A summary of the Protocol-Reject packet format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rejected-Protocol | Rejected-Information ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Code
8 for Protocol-Reject.
Identifier
The Identifier field MUST be changed for each Protocol-Reject
sent.
Rejected-Protocol
The Rejected-Protocol field is two octets, and contains the PPP
Protocol field of the packet which is being rejected.
Simpson [Page 35]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Rejected-Information
The Rejected-Information field contains a copy of the packet which
is being rejected. It begins with the Information field, and does
not include any Data Link Layer headers nor an FCS. The
Rejected-Information MUST be truncated to comply with the peer's
established MRU.
5.8. Echo-Request and Echo-Reply
Description
LCP includes Echo-Request and Echo-Reply Codes in order to provide
a Data Link Layer loopback mechanism for use in exercising both
directions of the link. This is useful as an aid in debugging,
link quality determination, performance testing, and for numerous
other functions.
Upon reception of an Echo-Request in the LCP Opened state, an
Echo-Reply MUST be transmitted.
Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packets MUST only be sent in the LCP
Opened state. Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packets received in any
state other than the LCP Opened state SHOULD be silently
discarded.
A summary of the Echo-Request and Echo-Reply packet formats is shown
below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Magic-Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
9 for Echo-Request;
10 for Echo-Reply.
Simpson [Page 36]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Identifier
On transmission, the Identifier field MUST be changed whenever the
content of the Data field changes, and whenever a valid reply has
been received for a previous request. For retransmissions, the
Identifier MAY remain unchanged.
On reception, the Identifier field of the Echo-Request is copied
into the Identifier field of the Echo-Reply packet.
Magic-Number
The Magic-Number field is four octets, and aids in detecting links
which are in the looped-back condition. Until the Magic-Number
Configuration Option has been successfully negotiated, the Magic-
Number MUST be transmitted as zero. See the Magic-Number
Configuration Option for further explanation.
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains uninterpreted
data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
value. The end of the field is indicated by the Length.
5.9. Discard-Request
Description
LCP includes a Discard-Request Code in order to provide a Data
Link Layer sink mechanism for use in exercising the local to
remote direction of the link. This is useful as an aid in
debugging, performance testing, and for numerous other functions.
Discard-Request packets MUST only be sent in the LCP Opened state.
On reception, the receiver MUST silently discard any Discard-
Request that it receives.
Simpson [Page 37]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
A summary of the Discard-Request packet format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Magic-Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
11 for Discard-Request.
Identifier
The Identifier field MUST be changed for each Discard-Request
sent.
Magic-Number
The Magic-Number field is four octets, and aids in detecting links
which are in the looped-back condition. Until the Magic-Number
Configuration Option has been successfully negotiated, the Magic-
Number MUST be transmitted as zero. See the Magic-Number
Configuration Option for further explanation.
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains uninterpreted
data for use by the sender. The data may consist of any binary
value. The end of the field is indicated by the Length.
Simpson [Page 38]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6. LCP Configuration Options
LCP Configuration Options allow negotiation of modifications to the
default characteristics of a point-to-point link. If a Configuration
Option is not included in a Configure-Request packet, the default
value for that Configuration Option is assumed.
Some Configuration Options MAY be listed more than once. The effect
of this is Configuration Option specific, and is specified by each
such Configuration Option description. (None of the Configuration
Options in this specification can be listed more than once.)
The end of the list of Configuration Options is indicated by the
Length field of the LCP packet.
Unless otherwise specified, all Configuration Options apply in a
half-duplex fashion; typically, in the receive direction of the link
from the point of view of the Configure-Request sender.
Design Philosophy
The options indicate additional capabilities or requirements of
the implementation that is requesting the option. An
implementation which does not understand any option SHOULD
interoperate with one which implements every option.
A default is specified for each option which allows the link to
correctly function without negotiation of the option, although
perhaps with less than optimal performance.
Except where explicitly specified, acknowledgement of an option
does not require the peer to take any additional action other than
the default.
It is not necessary to send the default values for the options in
a Configure-Request.
A summary of the Configuration Option format is shown below. The
fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Simpson [Page 39]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Type
The Type field is one octet, and indicates the type of
Configuration Option. Up-to-date values of the LCP Option Type
field are specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2].
This document concerns the following values:
0 RESERVED
1 Maximum-Receive-Unit
3 Authentication-Protocol
4 Quality-Protocol
5 Magic-Number
7 Protocol-Field-Compression
8 Address-and-Control-Field-Compression
Length
The Length field is one octet, and indicates the length of this
Configuration Option including the Type, Length and Data fields.
If a negotiable Configuration Option is received in a Configure-
Request, but with an invalid or unrecognized Length, a Configure-
Nak SHOULD be transmitted which includes the desired Configuration
Option with an appropriate Length and Data.
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains information
specific to the Configuration Option. The format and length of
the Data field is determined by the Type and Length fields.
When the Data field is indicated by the Length to extend beyond
the end of the Information field, the entire packet is silently
discarded without affecting the automaton.
Simpson [Page 40]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6.1. Maximum-Receive-Unit (MRU)
Description
This Configuration Option may be sent to inform the peer that the
implementation can receive larger packets, or to request that the
peer send smaller packets.
The default value is 1500 octets. If smaller packets are
requested, an implementation MUST still be able to receive the
full 1500 octet information field in case link synchronization is
lost.
Implementation Note:
This option is used to indicate an implementation capability.
The peer is not required to maximize the use of the capacity.
For example, when a MRU is indicated which is 2048 octets, the
peer is not required to send any packet with 2048 octets. The
peer need not Configure-Nak to indicate that it will only send
smaller packets, since the implementation will always require
support for at least 1500 octets.
A summary of the Maximum-Receive-Unit Configuration Option format is
shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Maximum-Receive-Unit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
1
Length
4
Maximum-Receive-Unit
The Maximum-Receive-Unit field is two octets, and specifies the
maximum number of octets in the Information and Padding fields.
It does not include the framing, Protocol field, FCS, nor any
transparency bits or bytes.
Simpson [Page 41]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6.2. Authentication-Protocol
Description
On some links it may be desirable to require a peer to
authenticate itself before allowing network-layer protocol packets
to be exchanged.
This Configuration Option provides a method to negotiate the use
of a specific protocol for authentication. By default,
authentication is not required.
An implementation MUST NOT include multiple Authentication-
Protocol Configuration Options in its Configure-Request packets.
Instead, it SHOULD attempt to configure the most desirable
protocol first. If that protocol is Configure-Nak'd, then the
implementation SHOULD attempt the next most desirable protocol in
the next Configure-Request.
The implementation sending the Configure-Request is indicating
that it expects authentication from its peer. If an
implementation sends a Configure-Ack, then it is agreeing to
authenticate with the specified protocol. An implementation
receiving a Configure-Ack SHOULD expect the peer to authenticate
with the acknowledged protocol.
There is no requirement that authentication be full-duplex or that
the same protocol be used in both directions. It is perfectly
acceptable for different protocols to be used in each direction.
This will, of course, depend on the specific protocols negotiated.
A summary of the Authentication-Protocol Configuration Option format
is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Authentication-Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Type
3
Simpson [Page 42]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Length
>= 4
Authentication-Protocol
The Authentication-Protocol field is two octets, and indicates the
authentication protocol desired. Values for this field are always
the same as the PPP Protocol field values for that same
authentication protocol.
Up-to-date values of the Authentication-Protocol field are
specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2]. Current
values are assigned as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol
c023 Password Authentication Protocol
c223 Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains additional
data as determined by the particular protocol.
6.3. Quality-Protocol
Description
On some links it may be desirable to determine when, and how
often, the link is dropping data. This process is called link
quality monitoring.
This Configuration Option provides a method to negotiate the use
of a specific protocol for link quality monitoring. By default,
link quality monitoring is disabled.
The implementation sending the Configure-Request is indicating
that it expects to receive monitoring information from its peer.
If an implementation sends a Configure-Ack, then it is agreeing to
send the specified protocol. An implementation receiving a
Configure-Ack SHOULD expect the peer to send the acknowledged
protocol.
There is no requirement that quality monitoring be full-duplex or
Simpson [Page 43]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
that the same protocol be used in both directions. It is
perfectly acceptable for different protocols to be used in each
direction. This will, of course, depend on the specific protocols
negotiated.
A summary of the Quality-Protocol Configuration Option format is
shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Quality-Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Type
4
Length
>= 4
Quality-Protocol
The Quality-Protocol field is two octets, and indicates the link
quality monitoring protocol desired. Values for this field are
always the same as the PPP Protocol field values for that same
monitoring protocol.
Up-to-date values of the Quality-Protocol field are specified in
the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2]. Current values are
assigned as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol
c025 Link Quality Report
Data
The Data field is zero or more octets, and contains additional
data as determined by the particular protocol.
Simpson [Page 44]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6.4. Magic-Number
Description
This Configuration Option provides a method to detect looped-back
links and other Data Link Layer anomalies. This Configuration
Option MAY be required by some other Configuration Options such as
the Quality-Protocol Configuration Option. By default, the
Magic-Number is not negotiated, and zero is inserted where a
Magic-Number might otherwise be used.
Before this Configuration Option is requested, an implementation
MUST choose its Magic-Number. It is recommended that the Magic-
Number be chosen in the most random manner possible in order to
guarantee with very high probability that an implementation will
arrive at a unique number. A good way to choose a unique random
number is to start with a unique seed. Suggested sources of
uniqueness include machine serial numbers, other network hardware
addresses, time-of-day clocks, etc. Particularly good random
number seeds are precise measurements of the inter-arrival time of
physical events such as packet reception on other connected
networks, server response time, or the typing rate of a human
user. It is also suggested that as many sources as possible be
used simultaneously.
When a Configure-Request is received with a Magic-Number
Configuration Option, the received Magic-Number is compared with
the Magic-Number of the last Configure-Request sent to the peer.
If the two Magic-Numbers are different, then the link is not
looped-back, and the Magic-Number SHOULD be acknowledged. If the
two Magic-Numbers are equal, then it is possible, but not certain,
that the link is looped-back and that this Configure-Request is
actually the one last sent. To determine this, a Configure-Nak
MUST be sent specifying a different Magic-Number value. A new
Configure-Request SHOULD NOT be sent to the peer until normal
processing would cause it to be sent (that is, until a Configure-
Nak is received or the Restart timer runs out).
Reception of a Configure-Nak with a Magic-Number different from
that of the last Configure-Nak sent to the peer proves that a link
is not looped-back, and indicates a unique Magic-Number. If the
Magic-Number is equal to the one sent in the last Configure-Nak,
the possibility of a looped-back link is increased, and a new
Magic-Number MUST be chosen. In either case, a new Configure-
Request SHOULD be sent with the new Magic-Number.
If the link is indeed looped-back, this sequence (transmit
Configure-Request, receive Configure-Request, transmit Configure-
Simpson [Page 45]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Nak, receive Configure-Nak) will repeat over and over again. If
the link is not looped-back, this sequence might occur a few
times, but it is extremely unlikely to occur repeatedly. More
likely, the Magic-Numbers chosen at either end will quickly
diverge, terminating the sequence. The following table shows the
probability of collisions assuming that both ends of the link
select Magic-Numbers with a perfectly uniform distribution:
Number of Collisions Probability
-------------------- ---------------------
1 1/2**32 = 2.3 E-10
2 1/2**32**2 = 5.4 E-20
3 1/2**32**3 = 1.3 E-29
Good sources of uniqueness or randomness are required for this
divergence to occur. If a good source of uniqueness cannot be
found, it is recommended that this Configuration Option not be
enabled; Configure-Requests with the option SHOULD NOT be
transmitted and any Magic-Number Configuration Options which the
peer sends SHOULD be either acknowledged or rejected. In this
case, looped-back links cannot be reliably detected by the
implementation, although they may still be detectable by the peer.
If an implementation does transmit a Configure-Request with a
Magic-Number Configuration Option, then it MUST NOT respond with a
Configure-Reject when it receives a Configure-Request with a
Magic-Number Configuration Option. That is, if an implementation
desires to use Magic Numbers, then it MUST also allow its peer to
do so. If an implementation does receive a Configure-Reject in
response to a Configure-Request, it can only mean that the link is
not looped-back, and that its peer will not be using Magic-
Numbers. In this case, an implementation SHOULD act as if the
negotiation had been successful (as if it had instead received a
Configure-Ack).
The Magic-Number also may be used to detect looped-back links
during normal operation, as well as during Configuration Option
negotiation. All LCP Echo-Request, Echo-Reply, and Discard-
Request packets have a Magic-Number field. If Magic-Number has
been successfully negotiated, an implementation MUST transmit
these packets with the Magic-Number field set to its negotiated
Magic-Number.
The Magic-Number field of these packets SHOULD be inspected on
reception. All received Magic-Number fields MUST be equal to
either zero or the peer's unique Magic-Number, depending on
whether or not the peer negotiated a Magic-Number.
Simpson [Page 46]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Reception of a Magic-Number field equal to the negotiated local
Magic-Number indicates a looped-back link. Reception of a Magic-
Number other than the negotiated local Magic-Number, the peer's
negotiated Magic-Number, or zero if the peer didn't negotiate one,
indicates a link which has been (mis)configured for communications
with a different peer.
Procedures for recovery from either case are unspecified, and may
vary from implementation to implementation. A somewhat
pessimistic procedure is to assume a LCP Down event. A further
Open event will begin the process of re-establishing the link,
which can't complete until the looped-back condition is
terminated, and Magic-Numbers are successfully negotiated. A more
optimistic procedure (in the case of a looped-back link) is to
begin transmitting LCP Echo-Request packets until an appropriate
Echo-Reply is received, indicating a termination of the looped-
back condition.
A summary of the Magic-Number Configuration Option format is shown
below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Magic-Number
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Magic-Number (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
5
Length
6
Magic-Number
The Magic-Number field is four octets, and indicates a number
which is very likely to be unique to one end of the link. A
Magic-Number of zero is illegal and MUST always be Nak'd, if it is
not Rejected outright.
Simpson [Page 47]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6.5. Protocol-Field-Compression (PFC)
Description
This Configuration Option provides a method to negotiate the
compression of the PPP Protocol field. By default, all
implementations MUST transmit packets with two octet PPP Protocol
fields.
PPP Protocol field numbers are chosen such that some values may be
compressed into a single octet form which is clearly
distinguishable from the two octet form. This Configuration
Option is sent to inform the peer that the implementation can
receive such single octet Protocol fields.
As previously mentioned, the Protocol field uses an extension
mechanism consistent with the ISO 3309 extension mechanism for the
Address field; the Least Significant Bit (LSB) of each octet is
used to indicate extension of the Protocol field. A binary "0" as
the LSB indicates that the Protocol field continues with the
following octet. The presence of a binary "1" as the LSB marks
the last octet of the Protocol field. Notice that any number of
"0" octets may be prepended to the field, and will still indicate
the same value (consider the two binary representations for 3,
00000011 and 00000000 00000011).
When using low speed links, it is desirable to conserve bandwidth
by sending as little redundant data as possible. The Protocol-
Field-Compression Configuration Option allows a trade-off between
implementation simplicity and bandwidth efficiency. If
successfully negotiated, the ISO 3309 extension mechanism may be
used to compress the Protocol field to one octet instead of two.
The large majority of packets are compressible since data
protocols are typically assigned with Protocol field values less
than 256.
Compressed Protocol fields MUST NOT be transmitted unless this
Configuration Option has been negotiated. When negotiated, PPP
implementations MUST accept PPP packets with either double-octet
or single-octet Protocol fields, and MUST NOT distinguish between
them.
The Protocol field is never compressed when sending any LCP
packet. This rule guarantees unambiguous recognition of LCP
packets.
When a Protocol field is compressed, the Data Link Layer FCS field
is calculated on the compressed frame, not the original
Simpson [Page 48]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
uncompressed frame.
A summary of the Protocol-Field-Compression Configuration Option
format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to
right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
7
Length
2
Simpson [Page 49]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
6.6. Address-and-Control-Field-Compression (ACFC)
Description
This Configuration Option provides a method to negotiate the
compression of the Data Link Layer Address and Control fields. By
default, all implementations MUST transmit frames with Address and
Control fields appropriate to the link framing.
Since these fields usually have constant values for point-to-point
links, they are easily compressed. This Configuration Option is
sent to inform the peer that the implementation can receive
compressed Address and Control fields.
If a compressed frame is received when Address-and-Control-Field-
Compression has not been negotiated, the implementation MAY
silently discard the frame.
The Address and Control fields MUST NOT be compressed when sending
any LCP packet. This rule guarantees unambiguous recognition of
LCP packets.
When the Address and Control fields are compressed, the Data Link
Layer FCS field is calculated on the compressed frame, not the
original uncompressed frame.
A summary of the Address-and-Control-Field-Compression configuration
option format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left
to right.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
8
Length
2
Simpson [Page 50]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Security Considerations
Security issues are briefly discussed in sections concerning the
Authentication Phase, the Close event, and the Authentication-
Protocol Configuration Option.
References
[1] Perkins, D., "Requirements for an Internet Standard Point-to-
Point Protocol", RFC 1547, Carnegie Mellon University,
December 1993.
[2] Reynolds, J., and Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
1340, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
Acknowledgements
This document is the product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working
Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should
be submitted to the ietf-ppp@merit.edu mailing list.
Much of the text in this document is taken from the working group
requirements [1]; and RFCs 1171 & 1172, by Drew Perkins while at
Carnegie Mellon University, and by Russ Hobby of the University of
California at Davis.
William Simpson was principally responsible for introducing
consistent terminology and philosophy, and the re-design of the phase
and negotiation state machines.
Many people spent significant time helping to develop the Point-to-
Point Protocol. The complete list of people is too numerous to list,
but the following people deserve special thanks: Rick Adams, Ken
Adelman, Fred Baker, Mike Ballard, Craig Fox, Karl Fox, Phill Gross,
Kory Hamzeh, former WG chair Russ Hobby, David Kaufman, former WG
chair Steve Knowles, Mark Lewis, former WG chair Brian Lloyd, John
LoVerso, Bill Melohn, Mike Patton, former WG chair Drew Perkins, Greg
Satz, John Shriver, Vernon Schryver, and Asher Waldfogel.
Special thanks to Morning Star Technologies for providing computing
resources and network access support for writing this specification.
Simpson [Page 51]
RFC 1661 Point-to-Point Protocol July 1994
Chair's Address
The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
Fred Baker
Advanced Computer Communications
315 Bollay Drive
Santa Barbara, California 93117
fbaker@acc.com
Editor's Address
Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
William Allen Simpson
Daydreamer
Computer Systems Consulting Services
1384 Fontaine
Madison Heights, Michigan 48071
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
bsimpson@MorningStar.com
Simpson [Page 52]